Ji Yun Kim
LIBR285-10
Fall 2013
December 9, 2013
INTRODUCTION
Although homelessness in the United States has been documented since the
1640s (DCEH, 2011), it became a bigger problem in the 1980s due to
deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill, funding cuts for subsidized housing, the
breakdown of marriages, and the nation’s illegal drug problem (Hersberger, 1999).
Further, it became a documented problem in library literature in the 1990s. While ALA’s
Policy 61 (“the poor people’s policy”), enacted in 1990, encourages libraries to serve the
poor, there is no formal enforcing agency for the policy, nor a specific policy for the
homeless. Consequently, policies towards the homeless vary from library to library.
Interestingly, while the term “problem patron”, appearing as early as the 1980s, has
often been used to describe homeless patrons in libraries, libraries today, at least as
represented in academic literature, appear to support the notion that the homeless have
a right to use public libraries. In more recent years, a few public libraries have taken the
initiative in providing specialized service to the homeless. The focus of this term paper
then, does not focus on whether the homeless are problem patrons or whether libraries
should or should not serve as shelters, but whether the existing programs to help the
homeless are indeed beneficial to the homeless. This study will explore the homeless
services of three specific library programs; the San Jose Public Library, the San
Francisco Public Library, and the Philadelphia Free Library. The San Jose Public library
collaborates with social service agency InnVision to provide computer classes, resume
workshops, story hours, arts and crafts classes, literacy classes and ESL classes at
both facilities (Collins, 2009). The Philadelphia Free Library partners with a non-profit to
train and hire formerly homeless individuals to work as library attendants and coffee
shop workers (Anderson, 2012) The San Francisco Public Library formed a homeless
and poverty outreach library team in partnership with the city’s Department of Public
Health and the SFFirst unit (San Francisco Full-Integrated Recovery Services Team).
The full-time, in house social worker and the SFFirst director, a psychiatrist, provide
staff training to better serve the community. Their team includes formerly homeless
people who go through a 12 week vocational program. These “health and safety
associates” reach out to homeless patrons in the library and distribute information on
where to find shelter, showers and hot meals. (ALA, 2013)
LITERATURE REVIEW
Scholarly literature concerning the homeless seems to have appeared in the
early 2000s, with the exception of Randall (1985) and A.W. Hafner (1992). Randall in
his article discusses the notion of the homeless as problem patron, including why they
are considered problem patrons.
However, while Randall generally advocates for
helping the homeless, he states at one point that “in cases of conflicting rights, those of
the real library users should be favored” (1985, p. 114). Further, Randall opines that
libraries have two options in the face of this issue: either a reformulation of public
libraries’ mission that would allow for more control over clientele, or for librarians to
serve as social advocates on behalf of the homeless (1985, p. 117). A.W. Hafner in his
1992 article notes the need for librarians to act as mediators in many situations,
including balancing the rights of the homeless with the rights of “normal” patrons. He
describes the case of Kreimer vs. the Free Public Library of Morristown New Jersey,
noting how the conflict arose and how it consequently affected public library policies.
Most of the academic literature since then seems to express the view that libraries
should assist the homeless in improving their situation. Julia Hersberger (1999, 2001,
2005) emphasized the heterogeneous nature of the homeless, and studied their
information needs; exploring how homeless parents used the library, as well as whether
the homeless were excluded from information access. Shen (2002) pointed out that
libraries must find a balance between serving the homeless and keeping legal and
safety regulations.
She suggested
using “positive action” rather than “simple
prohibition”, noting that collaboration with government was particularly fruitful since
libraries need financial support and the government needs effective vehicles for serving
the homeless (Shen, 2002). Gehner (2005, 2010) laments the nation’s (and library
profession’s) lack of servicing for the poor, pointing out United Kingdom’s prolific
funding for research concerning poor communities. He further discusses the poor in
terms of social exclusion/inclusion theory, outlining “five actions for engaging lowincome people” (Gehner, 2010). McCook (2006) draws on the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights to advocate for the rights of the homeless, stating that libraries in the
United States have failed in both proactively delivering services and removing barriers
to access.
Ayers (2006) makes several different points in her article regarding the
heterogeneity of the homeless and how information provided in a library can empower
the poor. She describes inexpensive ways libraries can serve the homeless including
referral services, job search guidance, literacy tutoring and vocational courses.
Cathcart (2008), similar to Hafner’s notion of librarian as mediator, notes that librarians
should be have communication, collaboration and training with social services to deal
with homeless patrons. Cathcart assumes however, that the homeless are primarily
using the library as shelters, which is not an “explicit mission” of libraries. Hodgetts
(2008), using an ethnographic method including observational, visual and verbal
qualitative methods, found that the library offered homeless patrons a place to socialize
and feel better about themselves, in addition to offering resources. He also found that
other library patrons did not view their presence negatively. Wong (2009) summarizes
the issue of homeless patrons including background information regarding the
homeless, why they are considered problems, what their information needs are, and
finally ways in which libraries can both internally and externally act to serve the
homeless. She notes that the homeless do not just use libraries for sleeping or bathing,
but for their various information and social needs (Wong, 2009).
More recently, scholars have conducted empirical research studies concerning
the issue.
Anderson (2012) conducted a study, but focused on the relationships
between librarians and homeless patrons; specifically how librarians were providing
service. Surveys consisting of 21 questions were sent to 255 public libraries in Ohio,
Michigan and Illinois, and the final sample consisted of 59 library staff. Anderson found
that while they were willing to assist the homeless, the homeless were often unreceptive
of help. Another issue was that the librarians simply lacked the knowledge and training
to help. Muggleton (2012), like Hodgetts, conducted research on the homeless and
information access/needs. He found that the homeless do pursue higher level needs
(belonging, self-esteem) with use of the library.
He also wrote in 2013 that
labeling/categorizing the homeless created the potential of deterring them from using
the services. Kelleher (2013) aimed to explore homeless patrons’ information needs, as
well as their perception of libraries. This research project consisted of surveys of over
100 homeless people in central Michigan, finding that homeless patrons mainly used
libraries for their entertainment needs. An anonymous survey of 10 questions were
administered to homeless people recruited from shelters. Lastly, Bunic’s (2013) study,
which takes place in Croatia, points out the need to view the homeless in cultural
context since characteristics of homeless patrons vary from place to place. Bunic’s
study evaluated three different models of services; he found that the homeless patrons
generally disliked highly structured programs.
DEFINITION OF RESEARCH PROBLEM
My thought processes in formulating this research question flowed naturally from
the literature review, however I found that Randall’s (1985) statement regarding the
need for libraries to either obtain more control over clientele or become social
advocates very much in line with my thoughts. As a library patron I often find myself
nervous or annoyed in the presence of mentally unstable homeless patrons and have
wondered why they were not asked to leave. However, after reading the literature on
the public library’s mission as a democratic institution, I began to understand the
possibility for libraries to pro-actively initiate services for the homeless. Echoing Shen’s
(2002) positive action versus simple prohibition theory, instead of finding dissatisfaction
without making any effort to solve a problem, why not take initiative to solve the problem
in a positive manner?
Considering that there have already been several studies on how the homeless
value and use libraries, the research problem I therefore intend to explore is whether
existing programs serving the homeless in the United States are effective. This requires
finding out whether the programs are being used, and if so, whether they are improving
the lives of the homeless patrons. The study will explore how the services are helping
the homeless whether it be emotionally, mentally or physically. Further, if the findings
are that the homeless are not using the services and/or not benefitting from the
services, the study will then have to focus on why this is so.
METHODOLOGY
This research project will be carried out using a case study method of three
libraries: San Jose Public Library’s various programs for the homeless, San Francisco
Public Library’s social worker service, and the Philadelphia Free Library’s employment
program for the homeless.
While I originally hoped to do a longitudinal study to
determine whether the homeless were becoming domiciled and socialized, this seemed
unfeasible due their transient nature. Instead, the study will span a year, during which
time I will maintain contact with the libraries, which will hopefully help to keep track of
the homeless patrons’ situations. Methodological triangulation will be used, with both
semi-structured interviews and direct observation.
Interviews can produce rich and detailed descriptions of participants’ experiences
and perspectives. A semi-structured interview involves a set of open-ended questions
that allow for spontaneous and in-depth responses (Ryan et al., 2009). Discovery
interviews are an example of a semi-standardized approach to interviewing. These are
one-to-one interviews which use open-ended questions and probes, based on the
principle of allowing the interviewee control over the interview process. The focus is on
permitting the interviewee to tell his/her own story rather than answer a series of
structured questions. Underpinning the discovery interview is the principle that
participants understand the world in varying subjective ways. Therefore, issues
are explored from an individualistic perspective. Developing an interview guide is key to
obtaining data that will address the study’s purpose and objectives (Ryan et al., 2009).
A semi-structured interview guide typically includes a few broad, guiding questions.
Applying these principles to my study, which will focus on whether the homeless
participants are benefitting from the services, the questions will be designed to solicit
descriptive stories rather than yes/no answers.
Sub-questions such as “Can you tell
me more?” and “What was that like for you?” will be used to expand upon answers
(Ryan et al., 2009). An interview guide is attached as Appendix A. The interview itself
will include several stages: introductions, beginning interview questions with a factual
focus, more in-depth questions, more factual questions, and conclusion (Rubin & Rubin,
2005).
However, since the participants are homeless and possibly emotionally
unstable, Rubin & Rubin’s structured interview guide is not neatly applicable to this
situation; demographic questions that may not normally cause emotional responses
may have a different reaction from homeless patrons (i.e. “What is your current living
situation?”), while more in-depth questions about library usage may not elicit emotional
responses. Therefore I will begin the interview by introducing myself and the research
topic, as well as the purpose of my research. Next, I will ask questions regarding how
they view the programs, or why they are not using the programs. I will then ask the
demographic questions regarding their situation, followed by more factual questions
about use of the programs.
Finally the interview will conclude by informally chatting
and thanking the participants.
Since non-verbal cues are an important part of face-to face interviews, I will have
to be certain of observing these cues to sense whether the patron may feel
uncomfortable with a question or on the other hand, willing to expand on a specific
topic.
After recording interviews with a digital recorder, written notes will be taken
regarding the physical cues and other instances of body language that were not
captured by audio.
Further, I will undertake non-participatory direct observation of the participants in
the programs using video.
The direct observation will help to cross-check the
information gained from the interviews, as well as observe interactions among
participants and staff. Observing live interactions can also reveal important issues or
ideas that may have not been revealed in the interviews.
Observing how the
participants interact (or don’t) in the program will also be helpful in assessing its
effectiveness and shortcomings. In particular, observing the participants should help
gain a sense of whether they are understanding the information being offered. I will
enlist the help of a fellow researcher to avoid occurrences of selective perception, and
every attempt will be made to maintain a critical attitude and avoid assumptions and
biases. Further, after the observations, an analysis of the external behavior will be
required for a true understanding of participants’ intention and feelings. Unfortunately,
there is a chance that the participants’ knowledge that they are being observed may
affect their behavior, or that their behavior is atypical.
Hopefully, with repeated
meetings and gained familiarity, the participants will behave naturally.
The sampling is necessarily a purposive sampling, since this is a case study and
I am targeting a specific group of people. Snowball sampling may also be possible
here, since the homeless population is highly transient and anonymous.
I will
collaborate with library staff and managers of the programs to recruit anonymous
volunteers, with a small compensation offered for their time in the form of food or other
supplies. The volunteers must be those that are participating in the programs and those
that are not.
Interviews with the homeless patrons will not be set at specific times; rather I will
attempt to familiarize myself with their general daytime schedules and seek them out,
once they have volunteered to participate in the study. The interviews will be taken
outside of the library, in a quiet area, or wherever the individual homeless patron feels
comfortable. The direct observation will take place in their natural settings, whether it be
facilities inside or outside of the library. The budget for this study is very inexpensive,
with the only equipment necessary a digital recorder and video camera, however the
study will take at least a year, with follow-up interviews and observations to take place
every three months.
Conclusively, I hope that this case study will determine whether the programs
offered are being used, how they are helping the homeless patrons and in what ways
they could be improved. If the study shows that they programs are not being used, the
interview questions will shift to focus on why they are not being used. The findings of
this study has several possible implications for librarianship.
If the programs are
generally beneficial to its participants, this is incentive for other libraries across the
United States to follow suit and implement the programs. Funding for programs should
be more obtainable with positive study results as well.
On the other hand, if the
programs show a need for improvement, existing programs and those that are being
created should take into consideration the issues brought up in the study. Similarly, if
the study shows that homeless patrons are simply not participating, a re-evaluation of
the programs will need to take place.
Appendix A
Interview Guide
A. Categories
1. Introduction
a. Introduce myself and the research topic.
2. Program Use
a. Questions regarding library use.
i. Those that are not using programs:
1. “Tell me about how you use the library.”
2. “Tell me about why you choose not to use the programs.”
ii. Those that are using programs:
1. “Tell me about how you use the library and its services.”
2. “Tell me about your experience using the programs.”
a. “How are the services helping you?”
b. “How can the services be improved to help you?”
3. Demographic
a. Questions regarding age, ethnicity, general situation to both groups:
i. “Please tell me a little about yourself.”
ii. “Please describe your current living situation.”
4. Program Use (more specific)
a. Those that are not using the programs:
i. “What about the programs keeps you from using them?”
ii. “Are there other issues that keep you from using the programs?”
iii. “What would motivate/convince you to use the programs?”
b. Those that are using the programs:
i. “Tell me more about (whatever specific program they are participating in) and
how it is helping you.”
ii. “Do you feel your life has improved in any way as a result of this program”?
iii.
“What issues do you have with the program, if any?”
iv. “What do you like and dislike about the program?”
5. Conclusion
a. Chat informally.
b. Attempt to establish follow-up meeting.
c.
Thank participants,
Appendix B
SAN JOSE STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
One Washington Square
San Jose, CA 95192-0029
Informed Consent Form for _______________________
This informed consent form is for library staff and homeless patrons using (name of library) and who we are
inviting to participate in the research study “Are specialized services provided by libraries for the homeless
effective?”
June Kim
San Jose State University
Case Study of Three Libraries Providing Specialized Services to the Homeless
This Informed Consent Form has two parts:
• Information Sheet (to share information about the study with you)
• Certificate of Consent (for signatures if you choose to participate)
You will be given a copy of the full Informed Consent Form
Part I: Information Sheet
Introduction
I am June Kim, working for San Jose State University. I am doing research on the effectiveness of specialized
services for homeless patrons provided by libraries. I am going to give you information and invite you to be
part of this research. You do not have to decide today whether or not you will participate in the research.
Before you decide, you can talk to anyone you feel comfortable with about the research.
This consent form may contain words that you do not understand. Please ask me to stop as we go through the
information and I will take time to explain. If you have questions later, you can ask them of me or of another
researcher.)
Purpose of the research
Homelessness is a major social problem that also affects libraries, since the homeless often have issues using
the library (whether it be obstacles to access or generally feeling unwelcome by staff and other patrons).
Some libraries however, have taken a proactive approach in serving the homeless. I would like to investigate
whether these programs are truly helping the homeless patrons using them, and if not, why they are not. This
information will influence library policies as well as help libraries to re-evaluate their programs.
Type of Research Intervention
This research will involve your participation in one-on-one interviews as well as direct observation of your
participation in programs/services. Interviews will take anywhere between 15-30 minutes and direct
observation for the length of the program being observed.
Participant Selection
You are being invited to take part in this research because we feel that your experience as a
(librarian/homeless patron) can contribute to our understanding and knowledge of the effectiveness of library
services for the homeless.
Voluntary Participation
Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. It is your choice whether to participate or not. If you
choose not to participate all the services you receive at this library will continue and nothing will change.
Procedures
We are asking you to help us learn more about the effectiveness of the library’s programs/services for the
homeless patrons. If you agree to take part in this research project, you will be asked to take part in a one-onone interview with me. During the interview, I will sit down with you in a comfortable place in or outside the
library. If you do not wish to answer any of the questions during the interview, you may say so and the
interviewer will move on to the next question. No one else but the interviewer will be present unless you would
like someone else to be there. The information recorded is confidential, and no one else will access to the
information documented during your interview. The entire interview will be tape-recorded, but no-one will be
identified by name on the tape. The tape will be kept [explain how the tape will be stored]. The information
recorded is confidential, and no one else except will have access to the tapes. The tapes will be destroyed
after number of days/weeks.
Duration
The research takes place over one year. During that time, I will visit you every 3 months and each interview
will last from 15-30 minutes. I will also be observing your participation in the program/services.
Risks
We are asking you to share with us personal information, and you may feel uncomfortable talking about some
of the topics. You do not have to answer any question or take part in the discussion/interview/survey if you
don't wish to do so, and that is also fine. You do not have to give us any reason for not responding to any
question, or for refusing to take part in the interview.
Benefits
There will be no direct benefit to you, but your participation is likely to help us find out more about how to serve
homeless patrons through library services.
Reimbursements
You will not be provided any incentive to take part in the research. However, we will give you $20.00 worth of
food or supplies for your time.
Confidentiality
The research being done in the community may draw attention and if you participate you may be asked
questions by other people in the community. We will not be sharing information about you to anyone outside of
the research team. The information that we collect from this research project will be kept private. Any
information about you will have a number on it instead of your name. Only the researchers will know what your
number is and we will lock that information up with a lock and key. It will not be shared with or given to anyone
except San Jose State University.
Sharing the Results
Nothing that you tell us today will be shared with anybody outside the research team, and nothing will be
attributed to you by name. The knowledge that we get from this research will be shared with you and your
community before it is made widely available to the public. Each participant will receive a summary of the
results. There will also be small meetings in the community and these will be announced. Following the
meetings, we will publish the results so that other interested people may learn from the research.)
Right to Refuse or Withdraw
You do not have to take part in this research if you do not wish to do so, and choosing to participate will not
affect your job or job-related evaluations in any way. You may stop participating in the interview/observation at
any time that you wish without your job being affected. I will give you an opportunity at the end of the
interview/observation to review your remarks, and you can ask to modify or remove portions of those, if you do
not agree with my notes or if I did not understand you correctly.
Who to Contact
If you have any questions, you can ask them now or later. If you wish to ask questions later, you may contact
any of the following: jiyunkim@sjsu.edu.
This proposal has been reviewed and approved by NIH, which is a committee whose task it is to make sure
that research participants are protected from harm. If you wish to find about more about the NIH contact
NIHinfo@od.nih.gov.
Part II: Certificate of Consent
I have been invited to participate in research about the effectiveness of specialized library programs/services
for the homeless.
I have read the foregoing information, or it has been read to me. I have had the opportunity to ask
questions about it and any questions I have been asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I
consent voluntarily to be a participant in this study
Print Name of Participant__________________
Signature of Participant ___________________
Date ___________________________
Day/month/year
If illiterate 1
I have witnessed the accurate reading of the consent form to the potential participant, and the
individual has had the opportunity to ask questions. I confirm that the individual has given consent
freely.
Print name of witness____________
Signature of witness
Thumb print of participant
_____________
Date ________________________
Day/month/year
Statement by the researcher/person taking consent
I have accurately read out the information sheet to the potential participant, and to the best of my
ability made sure that the participant understands that the following will be done:
1. One-on-one interviews.
2. Observation of participation in programs/services.
I confirm that the participant was given an opportunity to ask questions about the study, and all
the questions asked by the participant have been answered correctly and to the best of my ability. I
1
A literate witness must sign (if possible, this person should be selected by the participant and should have no connection to
the research team). Participants who are illiterate should include their thumb print as well.
confirm that the individual has not been coerced into giving consent, and the consent has been given
freely and voluntarily.
A copy of this ICF has been provided to the participant.
Signature of Researcher /person taking the consent__________________________
Date ___________________________
Day/month/year
References
ALA (1996-2013). Extending our reach: Reducing Homelessness through library
engagement. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/offices/extending-our-reachreducing-homelessness-through-library-engagement-6
Anderson, K. A., Simpson, C. D., & Fisher, L. G. (2012). The ability of public library staff
to help homeless people in the United States: Exploring relationships, roles and
potential. Journal Of Poverty & Social Justice, 20(2), 177-190.
doi:10.1332/175982712X652078
Ayers, S. (2006). The poor and homeless: An opportunity for libraries to
serve. Southeastern Librarian, 54(1), 66-74.
Bunić, S. (2013). Libraries and the homeless experiences, challenges and opportunities
– socio-economic background of homelessness in Croatia. Library
Review, 62(1/2), 34-42. doi:10.1108/00242531311328131
Cathcart, R. (2008). Librarian or social worker: Time to look at the blurring
line? Reference Librarian, 49(1), 87-91.
Collins, L. N., Howard, F., & Miraflor, A. (2009). Addressing the needs of the homeless:
A San Jose library partnership approach. Reference Librarian, 50(1), 109-116.
doi:10.1080/02763870802546472
DCEH (2011). The history of homelessness in America 1640s to present. Retrieved
from http://www.dceh.org/the-history-of-homelessness-in-america-1640s-topresent/
Gehner, J., & De la Peña, K. (2005). Poverty, poor people, and our priorities. Reference
& User Services Quarterly. pp. 117-121
Gehner, J. (2010). Libraries, low-income people, and social exclusion. Public Library
Quarterly, 29(1), 39-47. doi:10.1080/01616840903562976
Hafner, A.W. (1992). Librarian as mediator. Reference Librarian 37, 3-22.
Hersberger, J. (1999). The homeless, public libraries, and outreach services. North
Carolina Libraries, 57(1), 8-12.
Hersberger, J. A. (2001). Everyday information needs and information sources of
homeless parents. The New Review of Information Behavior Research: Studies
of Information Seeking in Context, 2, 119-134.
Hersberger, J. A. (2005). The homeless and information needs and services. Reference
and User Services Quarterly, 44 (3), 199-202.
Hersberger, J., & De la Peña McCook, K. (2005). The Homeless and information needs
and services. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 44(3), 199-202.
Hodgetts, D., Stolte, O., Chamberlain, K., Radley, A., Nikora, L., Nabalarua, E., & Groot,
S. (2008). A trip to the library: Homelessness and social inclusion. Social &
Cultural Geography, 9(8), 933-953.
Kelleher, A. (2013). Not just a place to sleep: Homeless perspectives on libraries in
central Michigan. Library Review, 62(1/2), 19-33.
doi:10.1108/00242531311328122
Muggleton, T. H., & Ruthven, I. (2012). Homelessness and access to the informational
mainstream. Journal Of Documentation, 68(2), 218-237.
doi:10.1108/00220411211209203
McCook, K., & Phenix, K. J. (2006). Public libraries and human rights. Public Library
Quarterly, 25(1/2), 57-73. doi:10.1300/J118v25n01̱05
Randall, S. (1985). The homeless in the public library. Implications for access to
libraries. Rq,25(1), 110-120.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The
one-to-one interview. International Journal Of Therapy & Rehabilitation, 16(6),
309-314.
Shen, L. (2002). The dilemma of urban library service for the homeless. Current Studies
In Librarianship, 26(1/2), 77-83.
Wong, Y. (2009). Homelessness in public libraries. Journal Of Access Services, 6(3),
396-410. doi:10.1080/15367960902908599